memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Incorrect Usage of the Term Apocrypha
The word "apocrypha" has been used throughout this Wiki inaccurately; the word means "of doubtful, questionable, or unknown authorship or authenticity". Just because certain works are not official canon does NOT make it apocryphal. This is a highly inappropriate term, and highly illogical for intelligent minds to make such a blunder. I recommend changing it to a more grammatically correct term, such as: "Ex Canon", "Non Canon" or "Non Canonical". Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam Webster English Dictionary, New World Dictionary, TheFreeDictionary.com, Dictionary.reference.com, Wikipedia.com, Encyclopedia Britannica -- TheDocent (talk) 04:21, April 26, 2015 (UTC) : . - 03:36, April 26, 2015 (UTC) ::This intelligent mind nearly never uses the word "apocrypha," as it nearly never debates issues of Church doctrine (even the Star Trek church). Archduk3's Wikipedia reference both supports TheDocent and shows the reference to a canon that is the basis for the word's use here. I welcome the use of a simpler term, maybe even a term that puts its sections in context for readers who have not read the website's policy on canon (example: In independent works). The more grammatically correct terms proposed above would need hyphens to be more grammatically correct. Spike-from-NH (talk) 09:55, April 26, 2015 (UTC) :::Since the word has, in its usual common-day usage, been already altered from having originally meant "secret", I'm not sure why there's a problem with once again changing the context, for our own purposes. Changing that (sub)heading would, I think, also require many changes, on many different pages. As I've implied, my train of thought involves asking whether that would really be necessary(?) --Defiant (talk) 11:47, April 26, 2015 (UTC) ::The problem with changing the meaning of a term is that one communicates less effectively with readers who are not in the know. I don't think it's vital, but perhaps TheDocent would be willing to undertake it if a large number of edits is necessary. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:04, April 26, 2015 (UTC) ::::Apocrypha is an interesting word when it relates to Christianity because it describes a set of books that one branch of western Christianity (Roman Catholics) considers CANONICAL and another doesn't (most Protestants). That's partly because they're Old Testament books, which weren't apparently written in Hebrew. (Some bits have subsequently been found in Hebrew, but the Jewish attitude to them is even more complex.) ::::I suppose if we're going to think of something similar here, then some Trekkies consider them "canonical" and others don't. ::::A lot of people confuse the word "apocrypha" with something which is a forgery, which is really pseudepigrapha. Do we really want to resort to something like pseudepigrapha? Most folk won't be able to spell that.-RayBell (talk) 13:53, April 26, 2015 (UTC) ::This website has done a fine job defining a body of work it regards as canon, writing an encyclopedia around that specific set of screenplays, and documenting related creative work outside that body. I don't think this discussion extends to whether there should be a canon or what should be in it; it is merely about whether there are better words to use in headings to describe the concept. As above, a more precise but even more baroque term would not be better. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:11, April 26, 2015 (UTC) :::::I personally don't see any issue with using the "Apocrypa" heading and, like Defiant says, if we did change it there would be an enormous number of changes required as the term is used in pretty much every single article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:43, April 26, 2015 (UTC) Blah blah blah. I'm so sick of douchebag attitudes like this where every single thing has to be argued to death, making a war out of everything. In my experience (as you all have further proven), Star Trek fanatics are typically so contentiously anal about facts that I thought you could appreciate the FACT that using "apocrypha" in the context of "not official star trek canon" is inappropriate use. The Catholic books known as THE APOCRYPHA do not have that name because Protestants believe they are non-canonical; they are called THE APOCRYPHA because their authorship and source is questionable, AND FOR THAT REASON they are considered non-canonical, not the other way around. As a scholar and teacher I can tell you that "apocrypha" is only appropriately used for writings for which no one knows THE SOURCE or for which the source is questionable WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT ALSO BE non-canonical, not merely because they are non-canonical. Every time I see it inappropriately used on this site to refer to non-canon works whose origin and authorship are well known makes me cringe - because it is wrong. But whatever, you're all welcome to remain ignorant. I see, that like all other forums on the net, this one is run by nasty, bully gestapo who couldn't just say "ok" even if you were paid to do it because you get off on fighting about EVERYTHING. Have fun killing each other because I'm not interested in that stupidity. -- TheDocent (talk) 18:31, April 26, 2015 (UTC) ::::::You're the only one here unable to conduct a pleasant conversation. The others have conducted a perfectly civil conversation and come to the conclusion it'd be too tedious to change. --Alientraveller (talk) 18:48, April 26, 2015 (UTC) Said the bully to the victim. I bet that if every entry in this Wiki gave all incorrect ship classes to the Enterprises you wouldn't be whining that it would be too "tedious" to correct it. And there's nothing here to have a conversation about. The word is being used incorrectly on this site and needs to be changed, period. Nothing to argue about, nothing to fight about, nothing to have a conversation about. If it is too tedious for YOU, then don't participate. Those of us who CARE will handle it. -- TheDocent (talk) 18:53, April 26, 2015 (UTC) :::::::Who is bullying you? You are the only one calling people names like "douchebag." It is possible to do wide ranging changes on the site with something like a bot, and that can be done fairly easily when the change is merely the name of a ship class as any other name will work in the context grammatically. It is harder when it comes to something like the use of this word, as it would need to be checked in context to make sure that a new word would still be grammatically correct. This may not be a simply change of one word to another word. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:13, April 26, 2015 (UTC) ::::::::Oh come on; our usage of terms like canon and apocrypha has absolutely nothing to do with the theological concepts with the same names, and how apocrypha are defined in bible studies is about as relevant here as the biological definition of a cell is relevant to penology. We didn't invent the use of the term apocrypha in a fit of ignorance, it is a literally term with almost a century of history, that we are using entirely correctly because it quite simply means something different then the christian concept it was inspired by. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:41, April 26, 2015 (UTC) I KNOW it has nothing to do with religion. I'M not the cry baby who brought that up! I was just correcting THEIR ignorance since THEY were using the religious use of the word as their excuse to justify they laziness in fixing this problem, and to feed their obsession with arguing. Are you all a bunch of middle school children?! And I find it infantile that you all ant to attack ME for wanting to better this site but you had no problem with ARCDUKE3 for his rude two word reply "You're wrong". So take your superior attitudes and stick them up your black holes. ::::::::You're not getting my point: not only is star trek not a religion, our understanding of the word apocrypha has nothing to do with the word you are talking about. We are effectively using a well-established technical term that you are apparently not familiar with, which is called "apocrypa" but is defined differently from the word "apocrypa" that you know the definition of. Just like how "theory" means something different in science then in everyday parlance, "apocrypha" has a specicic and peculiar meaning when discussing fictional universes. And we are absolutely using this term correctly. Also imho you are the only person that isn't acting like an adult in this discussion. Others may indeed have not stuck to the core of the argument, but a modicum of patience and levelheadedness would have been better to course correct then a dismissive tantrum about how you're smarter then everyone else. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:08, April 26, 2015 (UTC) :::::::::COMMENT: User:TheDocent is currently blocked for about two hours because of obscenity and personal attacks. Please take a break from this discussion. Tom (talk) 20:18, April 26, 2015 (UTC) ::Indeed. Archduk3's two-word reply was not "rude"; it was a hyperlink to Wikipedia that directly addressed TheDocent's assertion. The very new user, trying to induce a community to change a long-standing convention, should be on his best behavior, not begin his persuasion by daring us to prove intelligence and quickly turning to character attacks when he doesn't immediately prevail. Least of all throw around terms like "contentiously anal." Any massive change like this should be the result of extremely careful deliberation. If that seems anal to someone, that is not a problem. Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:10, April 26, 2015 (UTC) ::::::::::I think background information sections are an acceptable place for info from ST literature. -- DS9 Forever (talk) 21:48, April 26, 2015 (UTC) OMG, you all are a pack of fricking LUNATICS. I'm out of here. :::Not to enter the arguing, but I would like to respond to DS9 Forever; I don't think the bginfo sections are suitable for arranging the info from Star Trek literature. We already have a suitable (IMHO) place for that: the Apocrypha sections. --Defiant (talk) 11:19, April 27, 2015 (UTC) ::Again, I was receptive to OP's argument not because "Apocrypha" is incorrect but merely because it is an uncommon word. DS9 Forever's "Background information" would be an attractive heading, despite Defiant's statement that that is exactly what is in "Apocrypha." (Separately, re: LUNATICS, the nice thing about IPs is that they can be used for a second rage-quit on a single page.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:22, April 28, 2015 (UTC) :Background information is for real world info. Apocrypha is for expanded universe material. Both are appendix, or supplementary sections, and they're separate because we don't that information mixing if we have a lot of both, or one. - 01:29, April 28, 2015 (UTC) :::::I agree 100% with what Archduk3 has just said. --| TrekFan Open a channel 06:58, April 28, 2015 (UTC) :::As do I. --Defiant (talk) 12:26, April 28, 2015 (UTC) ::::"The Catholic books known as THE APOCRYPHA do not have that name because Protestants believe they are non-canonical; they are called THE APOCRYPHA because their authorship and source is questionable, AND FOR THAT REASON they are considered non-canonical, not the other way around." - That's not quite what I was saying at all (some Protestants do accept them as scripture by the way - as do the Orthodox). The point was about perception - one lot consider them authentic and the other doesn't, which I consider relevant to the subject in hand. Don't even get me on to the so called "deuterocanonical" issue! The Animated Series probably counts as such. ::::In regard to your other comments Docent, you're kinda overreacting. You've got to learn to agree to disagree sometimes. ::::I'm not a "fricking fanatic" (I'm a male, so I can't frig myself anyway), I definitely don't consider myself a Trekkie, have never been near a convention of any description for one! I'm a guy who likes Star Trek but isn't obsessive about it.-RayBell (talk) 13:32, April 30, 2015 (UTC)